Loss of HQ

[Ace Pilot]

The interesting discussions on command & control (C&C) in several other threads got me wondering what the effects are in real life (RL) of the loss of a headquarters unit. I think we all agree that in CM, the loss of a company or battalion HQ generally has very little effect on the tactical battle at hand. The loss of a platoon HQ, however, is typically more severe since the platoon is likely to lose morale and combat bonuses, as well as having a slower response time to orders.

How realistic is this? For the CM scale, would the loss of a company or battalion HQ be negligible in RL? In each case, I’m talking about the entire HQ being wiped out or captured. I assume that if the CO becomes a casualty, the XO takes over relatively quickly as compared to when the entire HQ is lost.

What impacts would be felt in RL at the CM level following the loss of a company HQ?

What impacts would be felt in RL at the CM level following the loss of a battalion HQ?

[yacinator]

I'm not a grog but here's what I think. Let's say that a company is attacking a small hill and the HQ gets wiped out. What I think would happen is that the coy would carry out it's mission (taking the hill), and after that the battle is over. So in RL on the CM scale the loss of the HQ would have little impact because everything that the company was supposed to do during that battle it did. The problems I think start after the battle when the platoon HQs don't have anyone to tell them what to do with their troops. Again, I'm not an expert but I think that company/batallion commanders make the plans for a battle but don't give commands or participate much in the battle. My 2 cents.

[RawRecruit]

I may be dreaming that I read this, but does the loss of high ranking HQs lower the global morale, thus making surrender/ceasefire more likely?

[Bone_Vulture]

Well, loss of just about any unit lowers global morale. Don't know whether battalion HQ's serve a bigger hit if they go down.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Well, loss of just about any unit lowers global morale. Don't know whether battalion HQ's serve a bigger hit if they go down.

It is a good question and Ace Pilot makes a good Point, should the folks at BFC not take another look at what are the neagative consquences for the player if the Battalion HQ is lost.

I think he brings up a good point, if the Battalion HQ is knocked out in a big game the PLAYER is still the Primary HQ in the game and the loss of the Battalion HQ in the game has no meaningful impact on the game. (or does it?)

I have never played a game where I have lost a Battalion HQ but I have lost Company HQ's before and I have all ways figured it was NO BIG deal, the game moves on JUST fine with out them thanks

-tom w

[RawRecruit]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Don't know whether battalion HQ's serve a bigger hit if they go down.

Aye, that's what I meant!

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Well, loss of just about any unit lowers global morale. Don't know whether battalion HQ's serve a bigger hit if they go down.

It is a good question and Ace Pilot makes a good Point, should the folks at BFC not take another look at what are the neagative consquences for the player if the Battalion HQ is lost.

I think he brings up a good point, if the Battalion HQ is knocked out in a big game the PLAYER is still the Primary HQ in the game and the loss of the Battalion HQ in the game has no meaningful impact on the game. (or does it?)

I have never played a game where I have lost a Battalion HQ but I have lost Company HQ's before and I have all ways figured it was NO BIG deal, the game moves on JUST fine with out them thanks

-tom w </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I think he brings up a good point, if the Battalion HQ is knocked out in a big game the PLAYER is still the Primary HQ in the game and the loss of the Battalion HQ in the game has no meaningful impact on the game.

That’s EXACTLY what I was getting at.

Originally posted by yacinator:

Let's say that a company is attacking a small hill and the HQ gets wiped out. What I think would happen is that the coy would carry out it's mission (taking the hill), and after that the battle is over. So in RL on the CM scale the loss of the HQ would have little impact because everything that the company was supposed to do during that battle it did.

I agree with this assessment. However, it raises some interesting questions. Does the company commander only get involved (at the CM level) if/when the original plan starts to fall apart?

Does the company commander play a more important role in a defensive battle, where a plan coordinating the response of several platoons must be developed as the situation unfolds? Therefore, the loss of a company HQ when on the defensive is more serious than on the attack?

What is the tactical role of a company commander once a battle begins? Is it his decision to send a platoon around a flank that has been found to be exposed, or does the platoon commander in the thick of it make that call? A decision like this I think is a grey area and really depends on a large number of factors, not the least of which is how much initiative a platoon leader exhibits. But something like when and where to commit the reserves would be up to the company HQ. If the company HQ gets wiped out, the reserves should stay put until the chain of command is re-established.

[Michael Dorosh]

Guys, in the CW (at least, don't know about the others), there was a Left Out of Battle system in place for just such emergencies.

If the CO of a battalion was killed, the DCO was usually someplace else and could take over. If a platoon went into an attack, the platoon sergeant was left a mile away as LOB (or vice versa). Same with company OCs and 2 i/cs. In a pinch, the RSM or one of the CSMs would take over a company.

You don't really think infantry battalions trained as if no one was going to be killed, do you?

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Guys, in the CW (at least, don't know about the others), there was a Left Out of Battle system in place for just such emergencies.

If the CO of a battalion was killed, the DCO was usually someplace else and could take over. If a platoon went into an attack, the platoon sergeant was left a mile away as LOB (or vice versa). Same with company OCs and 2 i/cs. In a pinch, the RSM or one of the CSMs would take over a company.

You don't really think infantry battalions trained as if no one was going to be killed, do you?

I don’t think you grasp what we are discussing. I think everyone acknowledges that when just the CO becomes a casualty, the next person in the chain of command steps up. The example we are discussing is one where the entire HQ is wiped out and the chain of command is severed for a specified period of time. The issue is what impact would the loss of the chain of command have in RL at the CM scale?

[dangerousdave]

When I was in the infantry (never in combat), I don't think most of the guys in my platoon even knew who our battalion C.O. was. The only time we ever saw him was at battallion formations. My guess is that, in the scope of a 30 or 45 minute engagement during WWII, the loss of battalion HQ likely would go unnoticed by those actively engaging the enemy. If the whole HQ gets taken out, the sr co commander would take over. Here, at least a relatively experienced commander takes over.

Loss of company HQ would have a great immediate impact, if we are talking about the C.O., X.O. and First Sgt all at once. They have day to day contact with the platoons, especially Top (1st Sgt). Of course, if the Co. HQ get's taken out, morale is probably suffering already because the situation is bad.

[kenfedoroff]

Doesn't the Battalion HQ unit in CM represent just the leader himself, his orderly and armed escort, etc.? Isn't there much more to a battalion HQ than this 8-man CM unit? Wouldn't there would be signals, staff, medics, etc. (all the support troops that don't normally see close combat)?

Maybe some grogs can help.

Thanks in advance,

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

I don’t think you grasp what we are discussing. I think everyone acknowledges that when just the CO becomes a casualty, the next person in the chain of command steps up. The example we are discussing is one where the entire HQ is wiped out and the chain of command is severed for a specified period of time. The issue is what impact would the loss of the chain of command have in RL at the CM scale?

I don't think you grasp how I am replying? I am saying tht an "entire HQ" would rarely be lost in that manner due to the built in redundancies I described.

[ January 18, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[throwdjohn]

this doesn't really apply to anything posted before, but i have a problem with the C&C in the games. why can only co hqs or higher take over sqauds out of hq range? section hqs and weapon plt hqs should also be able to take over sqauds. this is especially needed for if an inf plt hq is knocked out, his sqauds wouldnt be out of C&C for the whole game, the men could be absorbed into the other plts. or maybe im dumb.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

this doesn't really apply to anything posted before, but i have a problem with the C&C in the games. why can only co hqs or higher take over sqauds out of hq range? section hqs and weapon plt hqs should also be able to take over sqauds. this is especially needed for if an inf plt hq is knocked out, his sqauds wouldnt be out of C&C for the whole game, the men could be absorbed into the other plts. or maybe im dumb.

A weapons section HQ would never take over a rifle squad, though, in actual practice - they'd have no use for them. I think CM is right in this regards.

[tar]

Well, as a general principle, loss of a headquarters tends to produce paralysis of reactions for the unit in question. Although the loss of a company HQ wouldn't directly affect the squads on their immediate mission, the coordination of both defense and attack will soon suffer.

Now, in addition to the idea expressed above (of making HQ loss provide a bigger morale hit than ordinary unit loss), one could also contemplate having an increase in the command delay for the units involved. This would be particularly useful if there were actually a chain of command modeled by the game, since it would generally only apply to the subordinate units in question.

Although there there would presumably be some effects also going up the chain of command, since the information flow from that unit would drop out, thus degrading the picture of the combat higher up.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tar:

Well, as a general principle, loss of a headquarters tends to produce paralysis of reactions for the unit in question. Although the loss of a company HQ wouldn't directly affect the squads on their immediate mission, the coordination of both defense and attack will soon suffer.

Or you basing this on actual military experience, research, or what you've seen in other wargames?

I don't particularly agree that "paralysis" is an apt word. Certainly it would depend on the unit, their state of training, their doctrine, etc. Platoons in some armies were capable of independent action; a notable example might be the Allied paratroop units that landed in Normandy. Brecourt Manor, anyone? I realize you are talking about shorter term paralysis (Company "E" in this example had a few hours to recover from the loss of their CO), but what are you basing these comments on?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Guys, in the CW (at least, don't know about the others), there was a Left Out of Battle system in place for just such emergencies.

If the CO of a battalion was killed, the DCO was usually someplace else and could take over. If a platoon went into an attack, the platoon sergeant was left a mile away as LOB (or vice versa). Same with company OCs and 2 i/cs. In a pinch, the RSM or one of the CSMs would take over a company.

You don't really think infantry battalions trained as if no one was going to be killed, do you?

My question is whether the LOB deputies would arrive on the scene and actually take over the function of effective command in the space of a CM battle? My assumption has always been that they were there to reconstitute the unit and the chain of command in the next day or so if called on.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On the question of the degree of participation in battle of company and battalion commanders: I'd say it depends on which army we are talking about, what kind of unit is involved, the tactical situation, the personal style of the commander, and maybe some other stuff. A good commander—at least up to the level of division—in a fluid, fast moving situation might well command from the front, giving orders in response to unplanned developments. But in another situation, where combat is occurring in a more routine manner, he might do better to hang back and allow his subordinate commanders to run the show.

In the first case, his loss would likely produce a slower, less coherent response to battle. In the second case, his loss might produce little or no effect at all.

Michael

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't particularly agree that "paralysis" is an apt word. Certainly it would depend on the unit, their state of training, their doctrine, etc. Platoons in some armies were capable of independent action; a notable example might be the Allied paratroop units that landed in Normandy. Brecourt Manor, anyone? I realize you are talking about shorter term paralysis (Company "E" in this example had a few hours to recover from the loss of their CO), but what are you basing these comments on?

Actually, I think your example of Brecourt Manor illustrates perfectly the kind of paralysis that tar was talking about. As you point out, Easy Company had several hours to figure out that the headquarters was out of action and fix the severed chain of command. Once the chain of command was patched up, Lt. Winters got orders to take out the German guns. Notice that he didn’t decide to do it on his own – he got orders to do so from higher up.

How much sooner would the German guns have been taken out if the company headquarters had not been wiped out? What was the company accomplishing during those several hours when the chain of command was broken?

I agree that the level of paralysis from loss of an HQ depends upon many factors, but I think this example shows that it probably happens to all units with varying degrees, and CM would benefit from modeling it beyond the platoon leader level somehow.

[von Lucke]

In CM terms the loss of a Bn or Coy HQ is negligible --- they only serve as "spare" platoon HQ's. While CM is supposed to be a battalion level wargame, it's actual functionality is very much at the platoon level.

In RL, it's at the Company level that Things Get Done. The destruction of the Company HQ in the midst of battle might not have any effect on the current battle --- assuming everything goes as planned. But you can't have the platoons running willy-nilly hither-and-yon at their own recognizance. Who's going to co-ordinate support with flanking companies? Call up the Weapons Platoon? Commit the reserve platoon? Decide whether the right or left flank needs to move forward or retreat and coordinate with any / all of the above elements while doing so? Platoon commanders are too busy concentrating on what's happening right in front of their faces to worry about the rest of that stuff (and more). For Battalion HQ's, think of all of the above, only x10. The higher you go, the more strategic the concerns, and the more important the decisions are to the over-all battle.

In short, the Platoon is way over-emphasized in CM, thus minimizing the usefulness of the Coy and Bn command elements. But since we, the Players, serve as the Coy and Bn CO's anyway, does it really make any difference?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Who's going to co-ordinate support with flanking companies?

Actually, that's the job of Battalion. But you're right about the rest of it.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

[qb]How much sooner would the German guns have been taken out if the company headquarters had not been wiped out?

No much sooner at all. Most decent armies - to which I assume the US Army in WWII ascribes - had a clear chain of command that went from the top to the bottom. SO, if A is missing, B takes over. If A & B are missing C takes over. If A, B, and C are all missing, D takes over. Etc. Right down to Pte Snooks at Z. The first couple of steps are formalised*, the rest is based on seniority. If B turns up again later, well, he takes over.

In the specific case of BoB, Winters had a group of men from his coy around him, and was the senior per present, therefore he was the OC for all intents and purposes.

The point is that any decent military will not allow itself to remain leaderless for any significant period of time. Someone will take over, even if only temporarily.

Regards

JonS

* and in the CW armies at least take into account arm of service. So, for example, the arty rep at each level (FO at coy, BC at Bn, etc) is the functional 2i/c, and is the person to take over immediately the supported arms commander goes down. The thinking there is that the arty rep will be the best informed person on the spot in the way the former commander intended to run the battle, and naturally also has an intimate knowledge of the fire support arrangements. The 'real' 2i/c takes over when he can, but after the current battle. Incidentally, officers in the Dental Corps come dead last in the CoC. But they are in it.

[Michael Dorosh]

At Walcheren Causeway, when one rifle company of the Calgary Highlanders were rendered leaderless, the Arty Rep and the Brigade Major took over! Always extra officers around....

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by JonS:

Most decent armies - to which I assume the US Army in WWII ascribes - had a clear chain of command that went from the top to the bottom. SO, if A is missing, B takes over. If A & B are missing C takes over. If A, B, and C are all missing, D takes over. Etc. Right down to Pte Snooks at Z. The first couple of steps are formalised*, the rest is based on seniority. If B turns up again later, well, he takes over.

Right – I don’t think any of this discussion is questioning whether or not the chain of command gets fixed when there are breaks in it. We know that it eventually does. The question is how long it takes to fix the break and what are the consequences while the chain of command is broken.

When it is just the company commander that is a casualty, the XO takes over and the period of uncertainty, or paralysis, as tar called it, is relatively short, resulting in few, if any, consequences. However, if the company HQ gets overrun, or, as in the case with Easy Company, gets annihilated before even reaching the battlefield, this period of paralysis is longer since it takes longer for the troops to determine that the HQ is really out of action and not just temporarily out of touch. It is only after this determination is made that adjustments can be made in the chain of command and the newly appointed leaders make decisions appropriate to their new positions. Until that time, the platoons will continue to carry out their last orders and attempt to achieve their objectives, but, as von Lucke pointed out, they won’t be “… running willy-nilly hither-and-yon at their own recognizance.” I would expect them to be attempting to re-establish contact with their company HQ, but I would not generally expect them to undertake decisions and actions that are the responsibility of the company HQ while there is still the confusion surrounding the status of the company HQ.